In their Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), the Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the resurrection of Jesus.
Their case can be summarized in a short two-premise argument:
1. IF Kreeft and Tacelli refuted the four alternative
skeptical theories, THEN Kreeft and
Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of
Jesus is true (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).
THEREFORE:
3. Kreeft and Tacelli have proved that the Christian Theory of the resurrection of Jesus is true.
Their case for the resurrection of Jesus fails because both premises of this argument are false.
The first premise is false because there are at least dozens of different skeptical theories about Jesus' final fate, not just four skeptical theories and the Christian Theory[1]. The second premise is false because their objections against the Swoon Theory are all weak and defective[2], as are their objections against the Conspiracy Theory[3], the Hallucination Theory[4], and the Myth Theory[5]. They failed to refute ANY of the four skeptical theories that they criticized in HCA.
Because both premises of their argument are false, the case for the resurrection of Jesus put forward by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli in HCA fails utterly and completely.
END NOTES
1. See Chapter 6 of my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case. Here is a DRAFT version of that chapter:
CHAPTER 6: More than Five Theories
2. For full details on the failure of Kreeft and Tacelli to refute the Swoon Theory, see Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of my upcoming book, Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1: The Failure of Peter Kreeft's Case. Here are DRAFT versions of those chapters:
No comments:
Post a Comment